CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
19
yes no
Debate Score:36
Arguments:21
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (10)
 
 no (11)

Debate Creator

ladygreen(10) pic



Should they ban junk food ads from TV?

I'm doing a debate in a couple of days and would like to see peoples view on this. More of an Australian based thing, but everyone is free to post!

yes

Side Score: 17
VS.

no

Side Score: 19
3 points

Of course they should. How many cigarette ads do you see on TV? Over 50% of the population is overweight as a direct result of junk food. Yet less than 20% smoke. We all know obesity is out of control in this country, and promoting empty calories from fat and sugar is somehow OK based on the rights of capitalism. Give me a break. The industry promotes products that are processed with toxins to numerous to count, and is allowed to pass it off as food, because sleazy lawyers manage to skirt the rules by putting a sliver of lettuce on top and call it health food. Interesting to note that fast-food meat is processed with Ammonia to kill the Ecoli from the poorly raised beef stock from where it came. This is the same way tobacco is processed, and yet we don't see those ads, why? Because it's unethical to pedal poison over the airwaves that's why. They owe it to us to stop promoting their toxic garbage, just like tobacco companies.

Side: yes
cocacola3(11) Disputed
1 point

tobacco is a drug - and also is banned from advertisement in australia

i agree with most of your points except that one,

Side: No
DrOppotimus(43) Disputed
2 points

You don't think meat processed with Ammonia, and Tomatoes ripened with Ethelyn Gas is equally dangerous. If over 50% are overweight as a direct result of junk food, and yet less than 20% from a so called drug, then don't you think one of these things is mis-classified? Junk foods are drugs because over 50% of my country obviously can't stop eating them. For the first time in a century life expectancy decreased because of junk food. I don't really see the difference, and would in fact argue that junk food has a far higher mortality rate, and decreased the quality of life for anyone that consumes it. And also if your under 18 you can still eat junk food, and that would be why 1 in 2 children are expected to be diabetic by 2018. DID YOU HEAR THAT 1 in 2 CHILDREN. Ya it's a drug. One of the worst kind there is, cloaked in a happy box with a clown on the side.

Side: yes
1 point

I don't know how bad the epidemic is in Australia but just as a general stance

At one point in history cocaine was as legal as junk food. People used it freely without any repercussion from the government. Then they slowly began to learn the bad. You know what they did to stop their nation from falling right beneath their noses? They criminalized it.

The same story goes to junk food. Banning junk food ads from TV is a very small step because in the end it's already woven into society and the adverts don't affect the market - only the market share. However another point to look at is that banning junk food ads only increases the profits of the companies.

Ofcourse they should fucking ban junk food from TV - infact they should ban it if not tax it completely.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes they should because i watch tv sometimes and i see like gushers comercials and stuff and the goo is just gross to see and half our population is over weight and junk food doesnt help

Side: yes
3 points

No, though there needs to be restrictions on what companies say, they ought to have the right to advertise without the government acting like the peoples' nanny.

They should not be allowed to lie and say that their products are healthy but by banning the ability to advertise the government is giving a huge blow to their business.

Side: No

No, I don't think they should. People inherently know what is good or bad for them and will follow their tastes in food. No government or other agency should ban advertising of a product unless that product is against the law!

Side: No
DrOppotimus(43) Disputed
1 point

Really? People know whats good and bad for them? What do you think is in the meat. Where did it come from? How was it processed? What is the acceptable level of carcinogen and Ecoli in the meat? How much genetically modified growth Hormone went into the cow. How much Genetically modified corn went into feeding that cow? How many gallons of fuel did it take to bring it across the country to your table. Hmmmm..... after all you know whats good and bad for you right?

Side: yes
1 point

People inherently know what is good or bad for them

Yet that is exactly what advertising seeks to distort. People are taught through advertising a non-intrinsic, artificial and misleading idea of good food.

Side: yes
2 points

It's a free country and it's completely up to the station to decide what to air and what not to air. I don't think too many people see a commercial for McDonald's and think "What an interesting restaurant! I think I may eat there every day for the rest of my life!" And honestly, they don't even need too much advertisement- their brands are second nature in this culture. There are people who can state the Big Mac saying (I can't) but can't say the Pledge of Allegiance!

Side: No
DrOppotimus(43) Disputed
2 points

It is not completely up to the station if they want to stay in business. They are at the mercy of the advertisers for dollars. Media whores will do anything to stay afloat, including selling toxic waste to babies and their mothers. Furthermore if a legacy is selling poison to children, and thats our cultural legacy, then perhaps a new definition is needed don't you think. Media whores used to promote smoking as sophistication, tape worms for weight loss, cocaine as a safe alternative to pot. Need I say more. Screw those guys man, come on....think about it, they will tell you anything you want to hear to get into your wallet.

Side: yes
2 points

Only if you're ready for the ban on ads to continue to something you may agree with. Once you ban speech you disagree with, make no mistake that at some point speech you agree with may be put to the same scrutiny.

I can't stand Twinkies and wouldn't eat them if you offered me a truckload of them for free. At the same time, I'd fight for the right of someone to advertise them since it's a right NOT a privilege to advertise your wares.

Would someone kindly point me to the Article/Clause in the US Constitution that authorizes the government to ban any advertisements? Oh yeah, it doesn't exist.

If someone wishes to eat Twinkies, it's their individual choice to do so. Quit trying to legislate morality, propose food "pyramids" that have been proven wrong and just let people make their own decisions!

Do a search on Codex Alimentarius and see what the PTB have in store for you. Their goal is to make the purchase of vitamins and other supplements subject to the FDA as well as requiring a prescription.

Never forget that once you start down the slippery slope of tyranny, eventually it will catch up with your beliefs and then you'll bitch and moan but nobody will listen to you since you were complicit with banning theirs.

Side: No
DrOppotimus(43) Disputed
2 points

I understand what your saying. But to condone the distribution of toxins to the masses under the lie of food is unethical. As a smoker I understand that there are no ads on TV selling cigarettes. I know the harm involved in smoking. Why? Because there is truth in cigarette advertising. "Warning causes Cancer and Death." There is no truth in the ad for a Big-Mac. It's doesn't say, may cause heart failure and diabetes on it, but it should because it's the ethical thing to do. In the same vein as a Twinkie, would it be OK for me to sell blow-pops to kids with just a small amount of arsenic in them? It's just a little to add flavor and color? How bout if I didn't put that it contained arsenic on the label? Are you still going to fight for my right to sell it?

I'm not trying to legislate what people should eat, drink, smoke, snort, chew, shoot-up, or whatever. Free will and all. Advertisers are simply unethical.

I would also support the PTB as well. As someone who understands that nearly all vitamins have no useful qualities at all since nearly all of them can't be metabolized in the body. They pass through the gut right into the waste stream. So it's snake oil. You can research this on your own accord and will find it to be true. Again it comes down to ethics.

But I agree that it comes down to choice, but a choice made on erroneous, or false information provided by a company is simply wrong, and to advocate the misleading of consumers based on constitutionality is pretty weak. If companies took it upon themselves to act responsibly then perhaps they wouldn't have to be legislated into compliance. It's unfortunate there has to be an FDA at all, but business rarely acts in the interest of the consumer, but rather only in the interest of their shareholders and CEO's. Junk food peddlers are no different. They have to be on a leash, because the reality is they don't care about their consumers. If they could put crystal-meth into a burger to make you buy more, you can bet they would get right on that.

Of course we accept that things we prefer will be legislated against, and it's something we all accept. Like I said, I smoke, I pay a crap load of tax for them. I'm not complaining because it's my choice to do so. Tyranny would be to take them away completely. The will of the people is to legislate them with proper labeling, advertising, taxation and such. But hey... if you want it, you can still have it. But like I said before. Selling it to my kids with a clown on the side is out of the question.

Once you know what goes into the products you might feel differently. A Twinkie is hardly a problem when you consider that corn is in nearly every processed product on the planet. (including Twinkies). Monsanto Corn to be precise. A genetically modified bastardized version of corn. Known to cause cancer in animals, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and a host of other illnesses. Nobody except sleazy lawyers and no-faced corporate pigs would find this as acceptable to give and advertise to children or anyone for that matter. Freedom aside, toxic is toxic, and the truth is the truth. Selling a lie is unethical.

Side: yes
2 points

Tell me this - whatever happened to 'Freedom of Speech'?

Who gives a damn whether they show junk food? They show beer commercials, they used to show tobacco commercials.

Side: No
2 points

I do not believe junk food should be banned from TV. I still eat junk food and i hardly ever watch TV. Everybody knows you can go down to Mcdonalds any time of the day and get food, the ads themselves don't inform me any more. On another note more nutrition and health education at schools would be in my opinion a lot more effective than banning a mere 1 minute commercial.

Side: No
1 point

The matter of what ads to air, and what ads to reject, should be completely up to the individual TV networks. (I also think tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise on TV again.) If people want to eat crap, then that's up to them.

Side: No

More Government action. OH Please----------------------------

Side: No

Junk food makes people happy and I can't see taking that happiness away.

Side: no